On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “restrictive covenant (10-year)” — transcript expanded below

   Hacienda Hotel City Council Work Session

   discussed

   Council held a work session at Deputy Mayor Phillips' request to receive an update on the Hacienda Hotel restoration project. Staff and consultants reported demolition has begun, the project is on schedule for completion by early June 2016, and discussed window restoration options, costs (~$700K for windows, $300K for doors), and the development agreement with the Rosners, who will have 60 days after city's phase completion to submit detailed plans.

   • direction:Council received update on Hacienda Hotel construction progress and discussed window restoration options and the development agreement with the Rosners. (none)

   📍Hacienda Hotel📍Key West City Hall (historic Glenn Archer School)🏢DL Port🏢Opes Windows🏢State Division of Historic Resources👤Avi Rosner👤Bert Bender👤Debbie Manz👤Deputy Mayor Phillips👤Doreen👤Elaine👤Jim Runke👤Mario Iazzoni👤Marshall White👤Yakov Rosner#1924 building footprint restoration#Hacienda Hotel restoration project#Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines#boutique hotel concept (44 rooms)#historic preservation grant (~$860,000)#restrictive covenant (10-year)

   ▶ Jump to 0:21 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:21] the regular meeting so let's get started with the work session, Ms. Manz. Okay, Mr. [00:00:29] Mayor, members of the council, this meeting tonight is being conducted at [00:00:35] the request of Deputy Mayor Phillips. We have with us this evening [00:00:39] Bert Bender, Marshall White from DL Port, and Jim Runke who's been working as a [00:00:48] construction consultant to us on this project. What we'd like to do is [00:00:53] update you on the construction, both the project itself and the timetable, and [00:01:00] then talk to you a little bit about the Hacienda deal for the development with [00:01:09] our partners, the Rosners, and with that I'm going to let Mario get started. Thank [00:01:15] you very much, City Manager and Council. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, the update [00:01:21] here is that we're out of permit phase for the fencing and demolition permits [00:01:25] have been issued and that works currently proceeding. Actually, in the [00:01:30] past two days, the two feet of the roof lift has been removed and in [00:01:35] talking to the contractor, they're going to be working on those herting ties [00:01:39] right away. It sounds like the roof is in really great shape. Demolition of [00:01:47] North Face has begun and is expected to be completed within two weeks. [00:01:53] What I provided, I don't know if you sent that out, Doreen, is a timeline that's [00:01:58] provided. If you can pass that down, yes. And she's simply going to give you a [00:02:02] timeline as a point of reference in terms of how the project is going to [00:02:05] progress. And yes, we've invited Mr. Bender to speak for a few minutes to [00:02:10] give us an update on the project and maybe to answer any of your questions or [00:02:13] concerns. And finally, the developer. Yakov Rosner indicated in a phone call [00:02:20] about three weeks ago that they're committed to the project. I've been [00:02:23] keeping Avi Rosner up to date. We did reach out to him, he can't make it [00:02:28] tonight, but he is following the project very closely. Once we complete this [00:02:34] phase, what we call the construction term begins for the developer and the [00:02:39] developer will have 60 days to submit detailed plans and specifications. And [00:02:44] then within that same 60-day period, they will have to hire a general contractor. [00:02:49] Once construction commences, they'll have 30 days. Following receipt of [00:02:57] government approval, they'll have 30 days. And the other thing is that most of their [00:03:00] work will have to go through Historic Resources. So that's where we're at in [00:03:04] the project and I don't know if Mr. Bender wants to update us on some [00:03:08] of the progress of his work. [00:03:16] Thank you very much. This morning, we've been started with construction. [00:03:23] Tomorrow, we have officially our pre-construction meeting. That's where we [00:03:28] will get together with the contractor's personnel, discuss the timeline, the [00:03:33] project scope, and how the project is going to progress. And that'll be our [00:03:36] official kickoff. Today, we met on site. A lot of the selective demolition is [00:03:42] going forward. I don't know if I know some of you have been through the [00:03:47] building, so you've had a chance to see that the rear of the building on the [00:03:50] north side, as things are starting to come off, you can see what the original [00:03:54] spaces look like. The historic plaster ceilings are intact. A lot of the [00:03:59] moldings have become visible and some of the original detailing is being [00:04:04] recaptured as well. We also met on site with Public Works in terms of relocating [00:04:10] the meter and the RPZ, the backflow preventer, in front of the building. [00:04:15] It'll be relocated about eight feet to the south and it'll be actually behind a [00:04:20] future wall as we move forward. So the project has kicked off. Construction is [00:04:26] moving. I think the contractor's timeline has us completing in June, I think the [00:04:32] first week of June. So we're on track at this point in time. I'd be happy to [00:04:37] answer any questions that you might have. One day into the job and we're on time. [00:04:42] What a great idea. Any questions? Thank you. So essentially we're just peeling [00:04:58] back what was put up that's not going to remain. Yes, that's what they're [00:05:05] currently doing and I'm going to say that within the next two weeks you will [00:05:09] have a very good idea of what the north side of the building looked like [00:05:13] historically. Because those additions will be gone and I think you'll be able [00:05:17] to see, as in the interior of the building right now, in that area where [00:05:21] they're removing things you can start to see some of the spaces come back to life. [00:05:25] So yes, once that's done it'll be a whole new image, completely different. [00:05:30] And so that peel back is what we will then expect the Rosners to, that's the [00:05:36] pallet that they have to work with. Yes, what this phase of the project will do [00:05:40] is to weatherproof the building. It'll get a new roofing on it. Those elements [00:05:44] will be restored. A lot of the materials that have been covering up the building [00:05:51] for the last several decades will be removed and what the Rosners, or [00:05:55] whatever the developer of the Rosners, would do is to build back and complete [00:06:00] the interiors of the project. And then Mr. Izzoni, so the 60 days starts then from June 8th? [00:06:07] You mentioned that 60 days at that point is when the Rosners... Yeah, well as soon as we completed this phase, [00:06:13] the historic preservation component of, once the city's [00:06:20] component of that work is completed, again that first week of June absolutely, [00:06:24] then we have pretty much our contract is in place and then we follow along the [00:06:31] guidelines of the contract. And I think Mario did mention that all work will [00:06:38] have to go back to the Division of Historic Resources for their review and [00:06:42] approval. Whatever the developers do, whatever the Rosners do, we'll have to [00:06:47] get concurrence from the state. Mr. Bender, I just want to ask you a question, if I [00:06:54] may, about the windows. I had toured the Hacienda with a once, one-time [00:06:58] interested investor and developer and he was, it stuck out my mind, he looked at, [00:07:04] you know, we toured the whole building with, I believe it was Elaine at the time, [00:07:07] and he looked at the windows and he said, he thought the windows were in very, [00:07:10] very good shape and he, it sticks out my mind that he commented more than once [00:07:15] that you don't know how much money that saves by not having to replace the [00:07:18] windows. We had a discussion here at our last meeting regarding the cost of [00:07:23] replacing windows and doors exceeding, obviously we have to replace the doors, [00:07:26] but exceeding a million dollars. In your opinion, how, what shape are the windows [00:07:30] in? Is that something that's going to be necessary to replace or can we work with [00:07:33] the windows that are currently there? You could work with the windows that are [00:07:36] there now. The windows are obviously not the historic configuration of the [00:07:40] windows, but they are functional, they're operational, they have broken glass, they [00:07:44] do need to be refurbished as opposed to restored, though they need glass, they [00:07:51] need some maintenance work, things like that. Because the windows are not [00:07:54] impact-resistant windows, before you, say, occupy the building, before the Rosners [00:08:02] or whoever the developer is occupies the building, you would have to provide some [00:08:07] kind of impact-resistant covering for those windows. So if you left the [00:08:10] existing windows, you would then have to come back with, say, a panel system or [00:08:14] some kind of a shutter system to protect them. So if the cost of the doors and [00:08:20] windows is, say, a million dollars, we're dealing in round numbers, everybody's [00:08:25] good with that, a million dollars, and if 300,000 of that is the doors, then you've [00:08:30] got 700,000 for windows. So you're going to have some cost involved. If you don't [00:08:36] put the steel impact-resistant windows in, you'll have cost involved for a [00:08:41] shutter system, replacing glass, repairing those windows. You would have [00:08:45] to deduct that from the $700,000 number we're using to come up with what your [00:08:50] true savings would be. But what material, like the window frames right now, they're [00:08:53] not steel, because you said the original windows were steel? They're aluminum. The original windows [00:08:57] were steel, steel windows and steel frames. And there is one, at least one, of [00:09:04] the original windows there, so we know what it was. And they were exactly the [00:09:09] same windows that Opes Windows manufactures, and they do have that [00:09:13] window in an impact-resistant system. And there are options. The windows, as [00:09:19] designed, the $700,000 number we're talking about, those are [00:09:24] operable windows. You could save a substantial amount of money if, for [00:09:28] example, you went to a fixed window that looks exactly like that. It's still [00:09:32] manufactured by Opes, it's still the steel frames, it still has the same [00:09:36] appearance, and it would be less expensive than the operable windows. [00:09:40] Obviously, in a hotel room, that means that the people in the room don't have [00:09:46] the option of opening those for fresh air ventilation. There are pros and cons [00:09:50] both ways. And the Key West City Hall, which is in the historic Glenn Archer [00:09:54] School, those are also steel Opes windows. And we had originally looked at [00:10:02] operable windows, because that's what was there, and ultimately went with a [00:10:07] fixed window, which saved, I'm going to say, around $300,000, I think is [00:10:13] what it saved. But the decision that was made there, in part, had to do with the [00:10:19] fact that it was an office building, and they didn't want individual people being [00:10:23] able to adjust to climate control by opening and closing windows. It wasn't an [00:10:28] efficient way to climate control the building. So in a hotel, we're talking [00:10:33] about rooms where you'll have a mechanical system, eventually, that will [00:10:37] have individual climate control in each room. So if you do that kind of a system, [00:10:42] and you have the option of people opening windows, it's not the same impact [00:10:47] as you would in an office building, if that makes sense. And maybe it's a little [00:10:51] too technical. Right, so obviously we're not going to have the money to do [00:10:54] anything with the windows in the first phase with the historic grant money we [00:10:57] have, so I guess it's going to come down to the developer to decide at that time, [00:11:00] do I want to go ahead and spend round number 700,000, or try to restore these [00:11:05] for whatever the value is, and weigh the pros and cons, and see the difference in [00:11:08] the money. There are always options. Everything in life has options. In this [00:11:13] particular case, if the developer, or if you say, let's say that the City Council [00:11:18] decided that that was an important item for them, and they wanted to go ahead and [00:11:24] restore those windows, you could apply for a grant, say, to the State Division of [00:11:27] Historic Resources for matching funds, and they would pay for half of the cost [00:11:32] of those. So you have those options. Obviously, if you stick to the timeline [00:11:37] that Mary was talking about, where in June the developer comes back to do all [00:11:42] of those things, then that kind of a timeline is off the table. [00:11:46] I could ask you, so the historic preservation folks need to look at this, [00:11:53] so how much of the nitty-gritty do they get into? Do they require [00:11:56] particular windows, or types, or whatever? They require that the work that you do [00:12:02] complies with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines, and [00:12:07] for example, this first phase, we designed everything to comply with those [00:12:11] standards and guidelines, and then we submitted the documents to the State [00:12:15] Division of Historic Resources for their review, and we discussed several options [00:12:21] with them. They returned with their review comments and accept the work that [00:12:25] we're doing, and then we moved forward with the construction documents for that [00:12:29] phase of the work. So whatever moves forward, and you've already accepted, I [00:12:34] don't know if it's 860,000 or more, but something in that range from the state, [00:12:39] they have, you know, you have 10 years of a deed, I'm going to call it a deed [00:12:45] restriction, it's not, it's a covenant, restrictive covenant, where you agree to [00:12:49] comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. So the next phase of the work, [00:12:54] whether you had grant money or not, the Rosners would be obligated to submit [00:12:59] their plans to the State Division of Historic Resources. So if, for example, [00:13:04] they wanted to replace the windows, they would need to comply with the standards [00:13:10] and guidelines. But those folks don't require that they be either... [00:13:15] They wouldn't require, they don't require you to replace the windows. [00:13:19] If you do work on those, wherever you touch something, then that work needs to [00:13:27] comply with the standards and guidelines. [00:13:33] Deputy Mayor, you were the one that called this. Yeah, I did, because I have two or three questions. One, obviously, walking into this, we were given [00:13:44] some overall vision of how much this thing was going to cost and it came [00:13:49] back 80% over that element, which obviously was disturbing due to the fact [00:13:59] that, in my mind, I have to ask Mary O'Donnell to interject, you know, what is it that we [00:14:06] promised or what is it from our document that we entice the Rosners to get in a [00:14:18] development deal? Because you talked about there's a lot of choices and a lot [00:14:23] of options. You can leave the windows, they don't have to be operable, they don't have to [00:14:27] be anything like that. But then again, that trips other items when it comes to [00:14:33] life safety. Yes. It trips all the other things that, you know, I can only imagine [00:14:39] that the Rosners will be worn out, plum worn out, by the time they get [00:14:50] ready to open this project with all of the things they're going to have to deal [00:14:56] with on the construction side. [00:15:00] with the development department that we have, with the fire safety, with all those things, [00:15:06] taking a 1924 building that you're going to turn over to them in their original footprint, [00:15:11] but you have to make it operational in 2016. And so I'm just trying to make sure that [00:15:20] our development partner, you know, doesn't feel like, [00:15:23] you know, feels comfortable with what we are going to deliver to them, [00:15:30] because they have additional costs. We've tried not to get into the, [00:15:36] how are you going to decorate the daggum thing when it gets done, because none of us want to [00:15:40] be an interior decorator, but we, you know, because, but that conversation's coming. [00:15:45] What kind of doors, how the window looks, how does this look, paint schemes, all that. [00:15:51] But that being the case, I'm just trying to make, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Iazzoni, but [00:15:59] we own this building until they decide to buy it from us at some point in the future, [00:16:05] when they've reached a certain return on investment, overall operation. So [00:16:13] my conversation was, we had a million dollars. [00:16:19] What we got for that million dollars is what is going on right now. [00:16:24] But there were other things that were talked about, that were alluded to, [00:16:31] and I just want to be fair and equitable with my development partner, [00:16:36] because they were bringing money to the table. They weren't requiring us to have to jump through [00:16:41] some economic, mathematical, tax incremental financing, all those other elements. And that's [00:16:50] the reason we felt very comfortable, and we appreciated them bringing their money to the table. [00:16:57] But if what we turn over requires them to use a lot of the money they were going to use for [00:17:04] other things, I just want to make sure where we are in that conversation. [00:17:12] We could let Mr. Iazzoni address that. Councilman Phillips, I can answer that question for you. [00:17:19] We've had extensive conversations with the Rosners in terms of the expectation of the grant money, [00:17:24] and from day one we've communicated clearly to that the city has 100 percent control over that [00:17:30] money. And there's been no expectations communicated in terms of how we would deliver the building, [00:17:35] largely due to the fact that we are the owner of the building, and we have been working directly [00:17:41] with historic resources. We simply couldn't get into that expectation because of the nature of [00:17:47] the funds. It's public trust money that is in the hands of the city, and on many occasions we've [00:17:54] made that clear in our communication to them all the way down the line with the city manager that [00:17:59] we have 100 percent control over the funds. And there is nothing in agreement with an expectation [00:18:04] of what would be deliverable. It's just that the funds will be applied in the best interest of the [00:18:09] building to make sure that it's properly stabilized. With or without the windows, the doors, [00:18:21] or anything else being addressed. And we took the extra step during the process of taking it back [00:18:29] to a 1924 footprint. I'm not saying that that wasn't up front. I'm just saying that, you know, [00:18:37] obviously that's what we're going to deliver, which creates space usage and some other things [00:18:43] that we've all heard about over time. I'm just, like I said, I just want to make sure that [00:18:50] where our dollars are, how they're being spent, what we're delivering to our development partner, [00:18:57] because at the end of the day we want them to operate it at the best level possible and for [00:19:03] the best ROI, because we still will own it for a time in the future before we get the opportunity [00:19:14] for them to step up and maybe purchase it. Mr. Bender. I'd like to address some of that, [00:19:19] because I've had several conversations with both Avi and Yakov Rosner about the building. [00:19:26] One of the conversations was they had a plan that somebody had developed with only 30 rooms [00:19:32] in the hotel, and I think they had come back and they felt that in order to be viable, [00:19:39] they had to have, and I'm going to say 40 rooms was what they said they needed to have. [00:19:44] We produced a plan that was based on the historic configuration of the building that gave them 44 [00:19:49] hotel rooms. The value of the historic hotel in terms of marketing it as a boutique hotel, [00:19:57] which is what you're talking about doing, and what they are, or at least should be talking [00:20:01] about doing, is in restoring it to its historic footprint and its historic configuration. [00:20:07] The historic spaces in there is what people are going to come and pay their money to experience. [00:20:14] So if you want to do, say, let's say if a developer came in and wanted to turn it into [00:20:23] another quality in, for example, there's no benefit to you as the city council, [00:20:30] there's no benefit to the community in terms of restoration of your historic district. [00:20:36] The Hacienda Hotel is a very unique property, and once you see what comes back after that, [00:20:44] the additions on the rear of the building come off, I think you're going to have a better [00:20:48] understanding of the true value. I grew up there, I think I have an understanding of what it used [00:20:52] to look like. Right. So, you know, you're not talking to somebody that moved down here years [00:20:56] ago, so I understand that. My thing is that goals and objectives, I don't know what my [00:21:03] colleague's goals and objectives were. Mine was to put it back into private hands. Right. [00:21:09] We have that debate all the time. We ought to keep it, we ought to do this, we ought to do that. [00:21:14] At the end of the day, it's an asset that is not directly generating ad valorem funds. [00:21:23] It was bought at a number, and it's been discounted down to almost zero. We wrote it [00:21:30] off of our books at a point recently, and at the end of the day, we knew what we were [00:21:38] getting into in a lot of ways. We just hoped that that million dollars, I hoped, I'm not speaking [00:21:43] for any of my other colleagues, I hoped that that million dollars would have gone a lot further down [00:21:49] the road in conjunction with our development partner than where it is. Because I would like [00:21:57] to begin to have that property back in operations and back off of the tax and back on the tax rolls [00:22:08] so that it becomes a player in the marketplace. Because there's always that possibility [00:22:18] that it never goes away. And it's already spent 10 years as a non-profit item to the city of [00:22:26] New Port Richey, and we unfortunately allowed it to deteriorate to such a degree that it ate up a [00:22:32] lot of that million dollars just to bring it back into some marginal functional value to turn it [00:22:41] over to the developer. And I want them to be able to take their money and enhance what we give them, [00:22:48] but I also want to be able to be enhanced so that they can get a better return on their investment [00:22:54] so that it has that overall impact. That's where I was coming from, from day one. [00:23:00] Let me ask a question and a comment. Comment, Mario, I've tried to stay in tune. I've met [00:23:06] with the Roslers individually. I have, you know, they asked for one meeting with all of us [00:23:09] individually, as we all know. The way Mario, but I have tried to stay in tune with these negotiations [00:23:15] from day one. The way Mario just described the negotiations is how I understood them [00:23:20] from day one. There is not anything promised to the Roslers, and still not to this day, [00:23:24] that the windows were definitely going to be done. And let me just clear up one more thing, because [00:23:30] just publicly, number one, I'm glad to have them on board. I think Avi's passionate about this [00:23:36] project. I think he understands the importance of the history. You know, the rooms are going to [00:23:41] rent because of the historic, people travel the country to stay at historic boutique hotels, [00:23:47] and I understand that's what his objective is. That's what I would like to see the finished [00:23:50] product at as well. But you sat down with the Roslers more than once, as did Mario, [00:23:56] going through all these negotiations. Was there any, ever any doubt that we were not going to [00:24:01] use any of that million dollars to remove the north side of that building, the addition? [00:24:05] Was that a surprise to them? I can tell you that it wasn't a surprise to them, [00:24:10] because all of my conversations with them from day one involved that. I was very clear about [00:24:18] that, that the State Division of Historic Resources, what they want to see, the reason [00:24:23] they're willing to give you a million dollars is because they want to see the buildings brought [00:24:28] back to their historic configuration, their historic glory. That's their investment, [00:24:35] and you know, and they're not just giving you money for you to do whatever you want with it. [00:24:40] There are restrictive covenants that go along with that. So they have, they get in return, [00:24:46] you know, history in the state of Florida. They've brought back another piece of our history, [00:24:54] our historic architecture. Once again, I'm not knocking the Roslers. You know, I think that we [00:24:58] both have the same goal from the city's point of view, at least what I think the goal of the city [00:25:02] is, and their goal as well. And I do appreciate what Mr. Phillips said. They have brought money [00:25:08] to the table. There's no tax increment financing. There's no financing through banks. They have [00:25:12] money, which is phenomenal, and I'm glad they're willing to invest in New Port Richey, but I just [00:25:16] want to be sure we're all clear that there's no surprises here, that the city's not, you know, [00:25:21] pulling punches that, you know, just are not fair, and that they knew that addition was coming off, [00:25:27] number one, and they knew that the first million dollars, which prior to that million dollar grant, [00:25:31] I mean, I know we're going back a ways here, but they were still interested in the property prior [00:25:35] to us even receiving that grant money. So, you know, it's beneficial, number one, we got that [00:25:40] money to put into it. We may not be using it in the exact same way that they would have preferred [00:25:44] that we use it, but it's our grant money, and I just wanted to be clear that I don't think we're [00:25:50] pulling any cheap shots here. They understood what we were going to do with the money. Obviously, [00:25:54] we want to give them as much of a finished product as we can with the money, but, you know, [00:26:00] I understood that historic grant was one of the most important things was to bring it back to its [00:26:04] original footprint. The other point I'd like to make, Mr. Councilman, is the Rosners have been [00:26:10] our partners through the development of the bids and the specifications of the structural assessment [00:26:17] grant, so they know exactly what work is being done with the city's million dollars. Mr. Iazzoni? [00:26:26] One of the, at the very beginning, in terms of why we're interested in qualifying the Rosners for [00:26:31] the Hacienda was, from my perspective, economic development director, was to bring it back to [00:26:36] the original property that it was. I feel that that has the highest degree of economic value to [00:26:42] the city, and what I liked about Mr. Rosners' presentation and the communications that happened [00:26:47] early on was his desire to do that, and that was really important because if you looked at the [00:26:56] general partners project, they wanted to put, what was it, another hundred rooms on Bank Street, [00:27:01] and we didn't want that, and that's why perhaps they're the only group person standing, and then, [00:27:05] you know, obviously they had some equity capital to work with, so in the early conversations, [00:27:10] the expectation on the developer's part was to bring it back to the original property. That's [00:27:15] why we're so desirous to work with them because they had the same goals and objectives, I believe, [00:27:21] that we have as a city is to bring that, I think the greatest value of the city is to bring it back [00:27:25] to 1927. In the negotiations of the development agreement, the Rogers are very well aware of my [00:27:33] position in terms of moving the back, and that wasn't, they had, there was plenty of opportunity [00:27:38] to negotiate that in the development agreement, and that went back for many months, and it was [00:27:43] very iterative, and there was never a conversation in that process about the city keeping that on. [00:27:48] It was only after the signing of the development agreement that they came back and expressed an [00:27:54] interest in holding that back part on, but that request was outside the framework of all prior [00:28:00] conversations with them, and I believe that was outside the framework in terms of what we want to [00:28:06] see in terms of presenting the back side of the hacienda. One of the things that's occurred in [00:28:11] this process, largely due to the fact of the architect, is that, you know, we're uncovering [00:28:18] the fact that this building has a tremendous amount of historic value, particularly that [00:28:23] north face. It wasn't until the architect rebuilt and showed what was really behind there that any [00:28:29] of us really had an understanding of what that was. It's a very dominant part of the building, [00:28:35] it needs to be back to that presentation, so it ties to, so with the developer, we're going to [00:28:40] have those differences of opinions, but that's why, under direction of the city manager, we have [00:28:45] various mechanisms in place in the development agreement that assures that we bring it back to [00:28:50] that original one, and this is one of the phases that we've negotiated quite extensively [00:28:55] with the developer that we don't agree. We believe that piece should come off because of its [00:28:59] historical significance, and that was a key component of why we're interested in working with [00:29:05] them, and so there's been no, it's been a very open, very candid conversation about, you know, [00:29:13] my position in terms of it should come off, but there's been never any promises to keep that back [00:29:17] additional whatsoever, and we've kind of held firm with that perspective because of the historical [00:29:23] significance and presentation, and again, when you begin to understand the historical [00:29:30] significance and design, I could just walk through that building today and see how important it is [00:29:35] that that back comes off, and we've been, you know, and Mr. Rosner and I took off the gloves [00:29:41] after we have, we have very good, strong, very professional conversations and debates, very [00:29:46] professional, and when it was all said and done about our position, I think one of the big things [00:29:53] was, was can we keep the existing windows for them? They felt a little bit more comfortable after we [00:29:57] discussed that, so. [00:30:00] But, you know, we have to make, you know, as economic development director, I certainly [00:30:06] draw certain perspectives based on the communications I have from the city manager, from council, [00:30:12] and Mr. Bender here, and we generally felt that it would not get through the city's own [00:30:18] architectural review committee that will be in place when they start to leave that back [00:30:23] addition on. [00:30:24] It just detracts from the value. [00:30:27] Councilman Davis, you've been sitting back there. [00:30:30] I haven't heard anything different from day one to the day. [00:30:35] Just to refresh the public's mind, I'm glad we're doing that and tell us where we're at [00:30:40] and we're actually starting to see something, so I'm glad for all that. [00:30:43] I did hear one thing, that there is possibility of getting more money from the state on a, [00:30:49] you know, dollar for dollar, and so I would like to continue, you know, and maybe even [00:30:55] I didn't even know that we could do that, so I would like to look into that possibility [00:30:59] and see, you know, where this, if it comes from the historical, the division of historic [00:31:05] resources. [00:31:06] Yeah, I would definitely like to go back and talk to them and see what, you know, what [00:31:09] kind of things that we might be able to help the Rosners with on a dollar for dollar basis. [00:31:13] But other than that, I'm glad to inform the public if I haven't heard anything different [00:31:17] from the state. [00:31:19] There's certainly the opportunity for you to continue your partnership or for them to [00:31:25] also apply for those grant funds either through the city of New Port Richey or on their own [00:31:32] as the developer to apply for those grant funds. [00:31:35] I've been in touch, Yakov and I don't know if Avi, but I know Yakov had been in touch [00:31:41] with the state division of historic resources about some of these things and they contacted [00:31:45] me. [00:31:46] We've had that conversation. [00:31:47] Yeah, like I said, that's the only new thing new that I've heard, but I'm glad we're, you [00:31:52] know, day one and people are sitting at home listening to this and seeing where we're going. [00:31:58] And I've had frank conversations with Yakov about his budget, and he's not willing to [00:32:04] reveal how, you know, how much money he has for different things. [00:32:08] He'd like to put the majority, he said the majority of his money, $3 million into furnishings [00:32:15] and antiques and things like that. [00:32:18] In order, if that's serious, that he's got $3 million he wants to put into those types [00:32:22] of things, you have to have something to start with that makes that kind of an investment [00:32:28] in furnishings, you know, fixtures, furnishing fixtures and equipment worthwhile. [00:32:33] And a restored hacienda hotel is exactly the venue that would justify that kind of an expenditure. [00:32:40] So everything that you've done and everything that Mario has done feeds right into what [00:32:46] their goal is and the kind of thing that they want to do. [00:32:50] And if they can give me some real numbers, I can give them some real responses. [00:32:56] But it changes from day to day. [00:32:59] Certainly I would encourage them to look at the possibility of grant funding to cover [00:33:03] some of the additional restoration work. [00:33:09] I really believe this is going to be the absolute centerpiece of New Port Richey once it's completed [00:33:15] in three years, in a little bit. [00:33:20] It's got a lot of potential. [00:33:22] I can see people wanting to stay there. [00:33:27] I think a couple of my fellow council members have offered to put down deposits for a room [00:33:32] on the first night. [00:33:33] I suspect I may before it's over as well. [00:33:36] It's going to be a cool place. [00:33:40] Certainly I was as horrified as I think the Deputy Mayor was when we heard how much it [00:33:45] was going to cost to just tear out the windows and put in historically accurate windows. [00:33:52] A million dollars for windows is a lot of money. [00:33:56] Particularly when you count the windows and divide the million dollars by that, it makes [00:34:00] the per window cost pretty daunting. [00:34:03] I would like to point out too that the work that you're doing at the park, that north [00:34:07] facade, and the park that's there, if you look at the historic photographs, that becomes [00:34:13] the entire backyard for that building. [00:34:17] I think if you really look at the total vision of what's going on in that area, I think everybody [00:34:22] will recognize that to have the north side of that building be the backyard where the [00:34:28] trash cans are is not the appropriate presentation you want to that park. [00:34:33] I think we're beyond the vision. [00:34:34] I think we're there. [00:34:36] I think we understand what we're doing on the other side of the park. [00:34:39] I just wanted to make sure that we came to that meeting that night and all of a sudden [00:34:44] we were starting to take a lot of things out to compromise for the million dollars. [00:34:50] I just wanted to make sure that if there was going to be additional dollars required from [00:34:54] the city, whether it was penny for Pasco dollars, whether it was ad valorem tax dollars, whether [00:35:00] it was other funds, I just wanted to make sure we knew where we were going to be between [00:35:04] now and June when we turn this over. [00:35:07] If we have to be able to work with our development partner, I wanted to make sure we knew about [00:35:11] it in December or January and not June. [00:35:16] Because then you come up on the back end of a new budget. [00:35:19] That's the reason I asked for this meeting. [00:35:21] I was very pointed as it because we came to the meeting that night with a million, with [00:35:26] the things that were on the original list. [00:35:29] By the time we left that evening, we had about 45% of it for the million dollars, talking [00:35:36] about clips for the roof, which I know all too well, being in the roofing business, what [00:35:44] you run into. [00:35:45] I just wanted to make sure where we were mid-year this fiscal year and what other councils may [00:35:51] have to deal with out with the developer. [00:35:55] I just wanted to make sure what it is that we were delivering and that they were going [00:35:59] to be ready to pick the ball up at the end of May, 1st of June, and be able to move forward [00:36:06] in conjunction with what we give them and having to work through the rest of our departments [00:36:11] to open that facility in a timely fashion. [00:36:14] Let's cut to the chase then, and I don't know if Mario or Crystal wants to answer this question, [00:36:20] but when we get done with our portion of this, the very first part of June, are we going [00:36:24] to be within the budget that we've got? [00:36:26] Yes. [00:36:27] Yes. [00:36:28] Yeah, we've been watching it very closely, and we've worked with the general contractor [00:36:33] on that and have different divisions of that section, yes. [00:36:37] And make it perfectly known that half of that parking lot, the Gloria Swanson parking lot, [00:36:44] they have access to. [00:36:47] It's in the lease. [00:36:49] It's in our agreement. [00:36:51] So they can do what they want with that part of the parking lot during their construction [00:36:57] period. [00:36:59] That's my understanding. [00:37:00] Now, if it's different, please let me know, because everybody else seems to be in the [00:37:05] queue, and I'm the one who's sitting there not quite. [00:37:07] So I'd like to know. [00:37:09] I just want to make sure that they, obviously, because there were some conversations about [00:37:13] a building that no longer exists at the park that they were going to use for some storage [00:37:17] elements. [00:37:18] But it's going to be interesting to see where they're going to be able to store their goods [00:37:22] to make their renovations. [00:37:24] And part of that comes with those 48 parking spaces in the Gloria Swanson parking lot. [00:37:28] That's a great point, too, with Chasco coming up, if they are going to be planning, is Chasco [00:37:32] planning on having the carnival in that parking lot? [00:37:34] It won't be this year. [00:37:35] It'll be next year during Chasco. [00:37:39] That's always an issue. [00:37:40] The lease agreement is for that park, or the use of the parking lot, is what are called [00:37:47] a non-exclusive use of the parking lot. [00:37:51] It's just that it gets identified as 48 lots for the Hacienda. [00:37:55] It only, the lease agreement, it only addresses after the Hacienda is open. [00:38:01] There's no discussion in the wording of the contract regarding construction. [00:38:06] What the developer requested was the use of the bathrooms, and then in the process of [00:38:14] working with the city manager, it was determined that it was more efficient to take the bathrooms [00:38:17] now. [00:38:18] We went back to the Rosners and told them that we would be providing construction trailers [00:38:25] right there on the site for them as accommodation to the project. [00:38:32] And we sat down with Avi and pointed that out. [00:38:36] And just in terms of, we believe that those construction trailers are probably far more [00:38:43] beneficial than what that bathroom could have offered. [00:38:47] It's going to provide them more space, it's closer to the project, and we believe that [00:38:52] it provides them a greater degree of capacity to store their equipment closer to on-site. [00:38:57] That bathroom just simply was not, the way it was designed inside, I don't think that, [00:39:03] so that's what we've offered them as accommodation to provide, and actually I believe they're [00:39:07] going to be air-conditioned also. [00:39:09] I don't want to get too far afield, but if memory serves me, our capital expenditure [00:39:15] budget provides $1.5 million this year and another $1.5 million next year for the purposes [00:39:22] of building a parking garage, which should be going up on, I believe we're talking about [00:39:30] the parcel south of where the Hacienda is, that parking lot that's there now. [00:39:39] So I suspect the 48 parking place requirement, once they open, we'll be able to figure out [00:39:46] how to make that work. [00:39:50] Other questions, comments? [00:39:51] I just wanted to comment, I was so pleasantly surprised, I was watching a movie last week, [00:39:58] and I saw an image of the Beverly House, the California Beverly House, which was the scene [00:40:04] in The Godfather, and I was amazed at how it is absolutely the back end of that Hacienda, [00:40:11] and I snapped, I mean I sent a photo to the manager and Mario, but it was thrilling to [00:40:19] see that, that was exactly that same era, and if we're able to recreate that, it's exciting. [00:40:27] Thank you. [00:40:28] Other questions, comments?

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3Adjournment▶ 40:32